I was recently on the Scott Sloan show on 700WLW in Ohio to talk about Leelah Alcorn and how parents should deal with their children revealing that they are trans. This is a pretty big deal for me — it’s a nationally syndicated show that reaches a huge audience. Sloan misgenders Leelah a couple times in the intro, but I get the sense from this, and other things that I’ve listened to, that he’s someone who’s more or less on the right side of the issue and trying to make it palatable to what he senses Middle America to be. For those who don’t know, Leelah Alcorn was a trans teen who killed herself last month in response to being isolated from her friends, forced into Christian therapy that was meant to make her be cisgender, and denied the ability to start to transition.

My major point is that when children need medical care that their parents don’t believe in, the state intervenes to ensure that those children get the care that they need. Jehovah’s Witness parents don’t get to deny their children blood transfusions, parents that believe in homeopathy don’t get to deny their children chemotherapy. We don’t prosecute those parents for child abuse, unless the child dies from medical neglect, but we also don’t let them destroy their children because of their personal beliefs in unscientific nonsense that will lead to the deaths of their children.

When parents deny proper care to children who aren’t cisgender, they are contributing to a state in which that child is guaranteed to suffer and may die. Suicide is the third most common cause of death for teens, but it’s even more common for transgender youth. In cases like Leelah Alcorn’s, it is often predictable and can be preventable. 41% of those who identify as trans will attempt suicide in their life and that number jumps much higher, into the 70-80% or higher, if they are mistreated by their family, are denied the ability to get medical treatment, are out as a teen, and suffer from depression or other mental health conditions, as Leelah was and did. The national average for suicide attempts, by the way, is around 5%. For LGB people, it’s 10-20%.

]]>http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2015/01/22/leelah-alcorn-and-being-a-parent-to-trans-teens/feed/0Charlie Hebdo, the attack on the NAACP, and racismhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-the-attack-on-the-naacp-and-racism/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-the-attack-on-the-naacp-and-racism/#commentsSat, 10 Jan 2015 18:34:40 +0000http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/?p=5681There have been a lot of accusations of racism thrown around in regards to the work of Charlie Hebdo and the media coverage (or lack thereof) around the domestic terrorist incident at the NAACP in Colorado and I want to tease out some of these ideas that I’ve seen.

1. Accusation: Media coverage of Charlie Hebdo and not the NAACP is racist

The idea here is that the media covered Charlie Hebdo because the villains were people of color and the dead were white, while the NAACP is an organization for people of color that was attacked by a white person. The media thinks people are more likely to respond to narratives where the heroes are white, even if they are French.

I think this accusation is wrongheaded for a number of reasons.

1. No one died in the NAACP attack, 12 people died in France.

2. One of the more compelling stories to come out of France is the story of the Muslim police officer who was killed defending Charlie Hebdo against the terrorists.

3. The villains are organized and have been established villains in popular imagination.

4. Most importantly, the victims are other members of the media. It cannot be overstated how much the media latches onto stories of the media being victimized. This bias in the media is the most mundane one, and one that rarely gets talked about over the left vs right bias.

2. Accusation: The media not covering and being slow to cover the NAACP domestic terrorism is racist

When you separate it from the comparison to Charlie Hebdo and just note that the media has been a bit reluctant to pick up the story, then yeah, I think this is a reasonable complaint. This is a big deal and should be big news. It does seem to be picking up a bit now.

3. Accusation: Charlie Hebdo made racist cartoons

Ehhh, this is complicated. Of course it is, isn’t everything? A lot of the commentary around these cartoons has been, in my opinion, very shallow, both in the accusations of racism and the defense from racism. I think everyone is, of course, welcome to their opinion, this is not a personal criticism of any individual.

Political cartoons are almost always kind of racist the moment you put people of color in them. Not putting any people of color people in them would also be pretty racist. This is because caricature relies heavily on stereotype to get messages across quickly — all communication does, but political cartoons do even more extremely. Now, show a bunch of edgy political cartoons to people who don’t understand the language on the cartoons or the culture that produced the cartoons and ask them how racist those cartoons are? Yeah, they’re going to think they’re really racist. None of that, by the way, relieves cartoonists of the responsibility to make not racist cartoons. That said, many of the cartoons that are being called out as racist are making points against oppression of minorities or oppression within minority culture or referring to specific racist behavior of politicians or other figures. That doesn’t make them entirely not racist, but it also makes them complicated. They also come in the context of Charlie Hebdo being equal opportunity offenders.

However, Charlie Hebdo’s many layered context comes in the further context of France being a really awful place to live if you’re Muslim. It’s an incredibly racist and xenophobic society. What does that all mean? Not any one thing, except that if you are going to read criticism of Charlie Hebdo’s interaction with race, make sure it is nuanced and culturally specific and not just, “Look at this racist cartoon.” And just because a cartoon is racist or has racist elements, that doesn’t mean the publication or the people behind the publication were “racists.” Finally, I personally am really hesitant to take seriously any criticism of these cartoons unless it comes from someone who is a fluent French speaker and follows French politics closely, criticism from anyone else veers perilously close to cultural imperialism for lacking enough context unless they’ve done an immense amount of research.

No. Nope. Incorrect. There are a small group of people who think that the cartoons are hate speech and shouldn’t be allowed to be published, but the vast majority of people who think that the cartoons are grotesquely racist have valid reasons for doing so and are making points about complicated histories and relationships between people and media. They are worth listening to even if you ultimately disagree with their conclusions. And people thinking that speech is terrible doesn’t mean they want to regulate it away. I think the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to say things. I also think they are horrible. These two things reflect totally different values that I hold independently in the same head.

5. Accusation: You can’t be racist against Muslims

Usually accompanied with “Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims in the world.” To which I say, “Show me one Charlie Hebdo drawing that is of someone from Indonesia.” Islam is not a race, but that really doesn’t matter, because the Western world has a racial idea of what it means to be Muslim.

]]>http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-the-attack-on-the-naacp-and-racism/feed/10Maya Angelou, Susan B. Anthony, and Ashley F. Miller together at lasthttp://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2015/01/04/maya-angelou-susan-b-anthony-and-ashley-f-miller-together-at-last/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2015/01/04/maya-angelou-susan-b-anthony-and-ashley-f-miller-together-at-last/#commentsMon, 05 Jan 2015 04:19:03 +0000http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/?p=5668Sometimes you’re doing a deep Google search on your own name and you discover new things about yourself — I discovered a Table of Contents that included me.

An article I wrote about feminism and atheism that was published in CrossCurrents last year was put into a women’s studies anthology textbook — apparently the #1 one on Amazon: Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and Contemporary Readings. So now there is a thing about atheism and women in the most recent edition of, according to Amazon, the #1 gender studies textbook. So hurray for atheism being included in discussions of gender in academia!

Of course, this inclusion happened last April and no one told me that it happened so…? I’m going to contact the editors of the book and talk to them to see if I can get some more information on what happened and see if I can get a copy for less than the $110 it’s going for. I’ve asked my local library to pick up a copy and it looks like the school library has one that you can’t check out because it is required reading in a class. I was contacted last year because my article was the required reading in that class, but I guess no one thought to mention that it was in a textbook rather than a journal. Internet searching also reveals to me that the article has been cited in at least four academic papers and assigned in at least three courses. That’s not bad for something that’s been published only 18 months.

Torn between being confused that no one told me it existed, to ecstatic that I am considered anywhere close to the same caliber as these other writers and thinkers, to fighting down imposter syndrome, to super stoked to include this on my resume. Gonna go die now. And not just from the mono. Will update if/when I find out more information or locate the Discussion Questions! Discussion Questions, people!

I think you misunderstand. I am not here to keep the darkness out. I am here to keep it in. – Terry Pratchett, Thud!

I haven’t been around so much. This is because I have mono.

I assumed that if I got to 30 without getting mono it meant that I was one of most everyone who got EBV as a child and it wasn’t terribly noticeable and hooray for me. I should have been less optimistic.

It’s amazing how much you can not do with your time. Not dissertation, not work, not volunteer, not writing blogs.

There’s a lot of drama going on around here, to which I can only say this: I didn’t know Avicenna very well, I didn’t follow their blog much either. Much as I hate how some individuals over at Slyme Pit dehumanize some of my friends and colleagues, they did FtB a favor by finding and pointing out the plagiarism. And if it wasn’t going to be us, it is far, far better that it was them than almost anyone else.

There is something to be said for the fact that even when two groups of people hate each other as much as FtB and SP, it took only a few hours for a legitimate wrong to be corrected once brought up. I think that speaks to something right in the world. Now I nap.

]]>http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2015/01/04/i-have-mono-and-everything-is-difficult/feed/2Provide Abortion: A Giving Tuesday Askhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2014/12/02/provide-abortion-a-giving-tuesday-ask/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2014/12/02/provide-abortion-a-giving-tuesday-ask/#commentsTue, 02 Dec 2014 15:28:38 +0000http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/?p=5655This is going to be a donation ask, but in my defense, I don’t talk about where I work that often, so let curiosity lead you to read on — Provide is the real deal. It’s really rare to be able to say that about a place, to see the sausage being made and still be able to say, no really, this place is legit. Provide works in Southern, conservative states to make abortion more accessible, specifically because they are challenging and because the culture is hard to move. We train health care and social service providers on how to refer to abortion care, often giving them some of the first accurate information on abortion they’ve ever encountered. This is a huge gap in their education — abortion is a basic healthcare need for women, nearly 1/3rd of women will have need of one in their life, but it is not treated that way for political reasons. A third of women need a service and that service is hidden behind closed doors and misinformation, even from people in health care roles.

What Provide does is really different from what other abortion organizations do. The reason that I am so proud to work there is because it is situated so well at the intersection of so many concerns — class, race, gender, health, and geography — without making it about us versus them. We train people who are pro-life because our training isn’t about politics, and we have them acknowledge a professional obligation of care to their patients that is different from their own personal beliefs. There is a place for abortion politics and there are a lot of great organizations that do that work, but we’re about on the ground culture change. And we’re actually making that happen.

I am immensely proud to work for an organization that so successfully integrates intersectional feminism and harm reduction philosophy into its worldview, and I am immensely proud to work for an organization that cares about and invests resources in people who are from the South. Our trainers are people who were already local activists in the states where we work. My creative communications work means that I’ve gotten to put money into the local creative economy for video and acting and graphic design. We’ve got a UU church lady and an LGBT Youth Advocate; they didn’t hesitate to hire me despite my atheist activism and have never asked me to stop blogging and seeking attention on that front; we’re translating all our resources into Spanish and holding Spanish-language trainings. It’s really an amazing place. And it does it on a smaller budget than almost any other national abortion organization that you’ve ever heard of.

This is the link to where we’re trying to raise $5000 today for‪ #‎GivingTuesday‬. This is the cost of one of our Abortion Referrals Trainings — a day long intensive training that teaches up to 40 health care or social service workers, at no cost to them, how to do non-judgmental, accurate referrals, why they should be doing them, and allows them to ask an actual abortion provider questions about what happens when they refer someone to an abortion.

Here is a video featuring our field team from across our states that I spent about four months producing over the summer and I’m quite proud of it. If you have a minute (three minutes), check it out. And if you can donate, even a little bit, I know it’s not as aggressive a cause as atheism or politics, but it is a thing that is really making a difference in the world. And if you can’t, but think that what we do is worthwhile, maybe share what we’re doing, because a lot of people haven’t heard of us, and I think they should.

We often hear about the cultural bubbles that we build for ourselves online, but, for better or for worse, I’ve never managed to insulate myself from the opinions of those I disagree very strongly with. Ferguson has been no exception. I thought it might be worth the effort to lay out, in detail, my own opinions and observations here on my blog. This is a bit difficult because, for the most part, I would much rather promote the voices of others on this issue, particularly those voices coming out of Ferguson, but I also think that there are people that I can reach by writing about it myself. It’s worth noting at the top, then, that I am a white, upper middle class woman who has never had any trouble with the police and never thought twice about calling the police when I was in trouble myself. But that’s who I’d like to talk to right now, white people who aren’t afraid of the police, because I think we’re the ones who aren’t getting why people are burning buildings and cars in their own city in frustration.

I have some quibbles and questions about who exactly is burning things down, but let us assume for the sake of this discussion it is in fact residents of Ferguson behaving destructively and looting and so on and not, as rumored, militant anti-protester groups, out-of-towners, anarchists, or the KKK.

Forget, for a moment, what you know about Ferguson. I want to talk about anger and despair. When is the last time you got angry? Really, really angry? That you felt unjustly treated, that someone got something that should have been yours? You were robbed, you were violated, you were cheated, you were mistreated, powerless to control the world around you. Have you ever been so mad that you screamed? Threw something? Punched a wall? Got in a fight? The last time I got angry, really properly angry like that, it was because someone had lied to me. I was so angry I wanted to hurt something, wanted something else to hurt so I didn’t have to. I had no power to change what had happened. Despair and anger and powerlessness together are destructive — usually self-destructive.

Feel the anger, feel the despair.

Now, perhaps you want to protest, the people of Ferguson have nothing to be angry about. There was a fair trial. If people break the law, there are consequences. The people of Ferguson have a lot to be angry about, and so do a lot of people in this country — there is a reason that protests broke out nationwide. The “trial” was not a trial, and it was not fair, by any meaningful definition of the term. Finally, yes, there are consequences to breaking the law, but there should be consequences for abusing your position as The Law to subjugate others.

Walk through this with me.

1. The Law of Ferguson, MO, is Abusive

It’s easy to see how a community would be angry over the treatment of Mike Brown. Whatever was discovered afterwards, a teenage boy who witnesses said was surrendering was gunned down in the street in the middle of the day and left out, uncovered for nearly an hour. His body was left in the street for hours after that, while his parents screamed and cried. It would take a very strong community relationship with the police to give them the benefit of the doubt. Even before the military gear and tear gas and armored vehicles were rolled out, it was clear that there was no love lost between the community of Ferguson and their police.

“Despite Ferguson’s relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of 2,635,400,” according to the ArchCity Defenders report. And in 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court issued 24,532 arrest warrants and 12,018 cases, “or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household.”

The paper points out that in Ferguson, 86 percent of vehicle stops “involved a black motorist, although blacks make up just 67 percent of the population.” In addition, blacks stopped in Ferguson “are almost twice as likely as whites to be searched (12.1 percent versus 6.9 percent) and twice as likely to be arrested (10.4 percent versus 5.2 percent)”. Searches of blacks only results in discovery of contraband 21.7 percent of the time, whereas contraband is recovered from their less frequently stopped white counterparts 34.0 percent of the time.

The police of Ferguson: 94% white. Policing a town that is 2/3rds black. And doing so in a corrupt manner meant to raise money from the poor by fining them repeatedly for low-level infractions and harassing them constantly. The police here are the Sheriff of Nottingham and there is no Robin Hood, just a bunch of really downtrodden people trying to make their way through the world.

Mike Brown was merely the most egregious recent bad thing. It should be noted that for the hours that Mike Brown was in the street the police didn’t even take pictures of the crime scene because their camera was out of batteries and, apparently, no one had a phone or the ability to borrow a phone or anything like that, but they did manage to take a camera to the hospital with Wilson to get pictures of his red cheeks. They also let Wilson go back to the station and wash his hands and gun. Just actively bad police work.

There’s a lot of gangs that reside or associate with that area. There’s a lot of violence in that area, there’s a lot of gun activity, drug activity; it is just not a very well-liked community. That community doesn’t like the police.

And this is still going on. The protesters are still being mistreated terribly. People are being arrested illegally without consequences to the arresting officers. Dangerous weapons are being used on protesters rather than against people who are starting fires or looting. The Brown’s church was burnt down, rumors of KKK involvement. The KKK is definitely involved in local activity. Others have been shot by police in the St. Louis area since Mike Brown was killed. And none of this addresses the fundamental problem of a police force that neither represents the city it is policing nor treats it with any kind of respect. Law enforcement can only work when people have faith in the law.

Feel the anger.

2. The System is Fundamentally Broken Everywhere

Here is a link to a video of a 12 year old boy, Tamir Rice, being shot and killed in the right to carry state of Ohio for holding a pellet gun. He was killed 2 seconds after police exited their vehicle.

Here is a link to a video of police strangling a man, Eric Garner, to death.

Here is a link to a video of a South Carolina policeman shooting a man, Levar Jones, for reaching for his wallet to get his ID. Jones survived.

Here is a link to a video of St. Louis police killing Kajieme Powell, four miles from Ferguson (with analysis).

Here is a link to a video of a man shopping in a Wal-Mart, John Crawford III, right before he was shot and killed by police.

And those are just links to videos of people who’ve been shot by American police since July that I know of online off the top of my head. InnocentDown.org has more of a list. It’s something like 400 people a year.

But it’s not just that people are shot or killed when they have no weapons or legal weapons or toy weapons by jumpy cops. That’s really bad, of course, but that’s not the only thing that’s wrong with the system.

Let me take you on a bit of a tangent. I’ve been listening to this podcast, Serial, and maybe you’ve heard about it. It’s about a murder case from 1999 in which a guy, Adnon Syed, got put in jail for life for the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, based on the testimony from another guy, Jay Wilds, who claimed to be an accessory after the fact. There was no hard evidence linking Adnon to the murder and no clear motive, but he also lacked a solid alibi. Jay’s story changed frequently and his story’s timeline didn’t match up with all the evidence. Despite this, Adnon went to prison and Jay, the guy who confessed to helping with the crime, got no time in jail at all. The state completely failed to prosecute Adnon with a plausible story of how the murder happened based on the facts of the crime, but despite this, Adnon is in prison. And there’s no way of knowing whether Adnon did it or not and which parts of which of Jay’s stories are true.

A lot of people are listening to Serial hoping to find out whether Adnon did it, but that’s not what Serial is about. It’s not a meditation on the nature of truth, either, though it makes important points about how hard it is to get at the truth after an event unless it is recorded on film — and even film is imperfect. It’s a meditation on the nature of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system in America is incredibly flawed.

Adnon was convicted with information that was demonstrably false by lazy prosecutors more interested in a conviction than in the truth. Because a conviction is more useful to the prosecution than the truth — especially if they believe that the truth is that Adnon did it and it doesn’t matter how. Journalists care about truth, prosecutors care about cases, the state cares about keeping people in prison. How true is this? There is another person mentioned in one of the episodes, a guy named Justin Wolfe. Justin Wolfe was put in prison, on death row, based on the testimony of someone who said Wolfe hired a hitman to commit a murder. This testimony was entirely false and the person immediately recanted, saying the prosecutors forced him to say it. A Federal Judge was told this and vacated Justin’s convictions and sentences, removing him from death row, because it was grotesque misbehavior on the part of the prosecutors. But Justin was not removed from prison. He’s still in prison, facing newly conceived charges and not being allowed to leave until they are tried. It is unbelievable.

The system is fundamentally broken. We put people in prison for the wrong reasons. We put people in prison for too long. We put people into corrupt prison systems. We put people into prison systems that are meant to make a profit, not to rehabilitate the prisoners. We use corrupt systems of justice to send people to prison in the first place — systems with opportunities to be corrupted by politics, racism, sexism, cronyism, nepotism, and bad law at every stage of the game. Systems that are rife with human error based on things like whether people have eaten recently enough.

We arrest people (black people more) for harmless things like smoking a joint and then create mandatory minimums so they have to go to jail for extremely long periods of time for minor things and then states can take away their right to vote. The system is designed to prey on poor people, on people of color, and on people who are already disenfranchised. People are put in the system young and stay in the system.

Feel the despair.

3. It should never have been Bob McCulloch

There are a lot of reasons it looks bad for Bob McCulloch to be the man who took this case. His father was a policeman who was killed in the line, he’s white, he’s associated with the police group that was supposedly benefiting from the fundraising in the name of Darren Wilson, and he’s never indicted a policeman. These are, you might say, merely circumstantial, but they don’t start us off on the right foot with McCulloch. I actually don’t have a problem with any of that, I wouldn’t be surprised if its the background you find for most prosecutors.

The real problem is McCulloch’s day job.

Prosecuting a police officer is a nightmare unless the officer did something so clearly egregious that the rest of the police community has turned against him. And egregious in the eyes of police officers is not always the same as egregious in the eyes of everyone else. It’s not just that you have to prosecute them and the police aren’t going to like you, it’s that you are the prosecutor and you work with the police all the time. That group that’s not actually making any money from the fundraising in the name of Darren Wilson — it’s still a group that’s dedicated to the police. Because McCulloch knows who he works with, and it’s not the protesters on the streets of Ferguson. His every day life has a much better chance of going back to normal if he doesn’t indict on what is, from his perspective, an unwinnable case. Police just don’t go to prison for this — McCulloch knows that. He held the grand jury because he knew it would cause more anger if he didn’t, not because he thought that there was a chance of indictment, even though Mike Brown was shot when he was no longer a threat, if he ever had been.

The reality is also that McCulloch is an elected official and this is a political disaster. The case should have been given to an outsider. It would have given him some protection and given the grand jury a shot at impartiality. It should be noted that this never happens, it’s not really how the system works, and it’s a large part of the reason why police are almost never held accountable for their actions.

Feel the anger.

4. The Grand Jury was not a Fair Trial

I have seen a lot of people make the claim that both sides got a fair hearing at the grand jury and this was just as good as a trial, so no one should be angry about the results.

The grand jury was used as a political dodge by McCulloch, not as a grand jury

The grand jury was used in a way unlike any other grand jury held in the history of grand juries to create a special treatment just for Darren Wilson

The grand jury lacked an adversarial courtroom

The grand jury was full of bias and mistakes

There is an argument to be made that all grand juries should be held the way this one was, with evidence for and against the accused presented. That said, that is simply not the way grand juries are used in this country. A private law (privilege) was created for one man that no one else gets all because McCulloch wanted to dodge a political inconvenience.

The way a grand jury normally works is that the prosecutor presents the strongest argument they have as to why this needs to go to trial and what they want to charge the defendant with. It usually lasts a few minutes. Fortunately, McCulloch released the documents so we can actually see how the grand jury went — and it is revealing to see the ways in which it was very much not a trial. The goal of a trial is to get at the truth, the goal of the grand jury was to make sure that Wilson never got charged by obfuscating rather than clarifying.

The biggest way that it failed to clarify was in lacking an adversarial courtroom — there was no cross examination of the witnesses, including Wilson. There were things in Wilson’s testimony that warranted questioning, including changes in his story from the first time he told it to the the courtroom version. And disparities between his story and Dorian Johnson’s. Both of them should have been grilled to get the facts straight — because this now isn’t going to an actual trial, there is not going to be an opportunity to get at the real truth of the thing. Throwing this meant throwing out our best chance at the truth.

Questions for Wilson: If you were being hit so hard, why don’t you appear to be injured? How do you define a charge — you say he took a step and you say he was running and you say he was about to run, could you please be very specific about what happened and when you started shooting? We have audio of the shooting, could you please tell me what he was doing during these shots? You keep mentioning that he was reaching for his waistband, but you say you didn’t think about whether he had a weapon, why did you note he was reaching for his waistband? You’re a big guy, why did you feel he was so much bigger than you, the disparity isn’t that great? You compare Mike to a demon, do you believe in demons? You talk about the people in this community not liking police, why do you think that is? How do you feel that hostility mattered in this incident? In your first version of this event, you don’t mention the cigarillos, why are they in your current testimony? Do you know the punishment for stealing cigarillos?

There’s nothing like this. It reads like questioning from a defense attorney. It’s incredible. How incredible? After getting his name and such, the questioning opens with the prosecutor asking Wilson about how he saved a baby the morning before he killed Mike Brown. Totally irrelevant to the facts of the case, and overstating Wilson’s role. Wilson answered a call for a baby with a fever. And the prosecutor makes sure to bring it up as the initial thing to frame who Wilson is. Just as an example of bias in this fair trail.

Another example of bias? Before Darren Wilson testified, the prosecutor handed out a use of force law that’s been unconstitutional since 1985 — this law said that as soon as a suspect ran, it was OK to shoot them. The grand jury had that illegal statute for months before the prosecutor corrected it and, when they did correct it, they didn’t explain what was wrong with it, just handed them a print out. Yeah.

Feel the despair.

5. Darren Wilson’s Testimony shows the Danger of Racism

That is somewhat awkward phrasing, but I wanted to avoid saying “Darren Wilson is racist and that’s why Mike Brown is dead,” because I don’t know that it’s a helpful thing to say. But I will say this, Darren Wilson says some transparently racist things about Mike Brown in his testimony.

It’s also worth noting that Darren Wilson worked for a police force that was disbanded for being completely dysfunctional, basically because they were racist and dependent on excessive force, before he joined the Ferguson PD.

Wilson described Mike Brown as an “it,” as a “demon,” and as the “Hulk Hogan” to 6’4″ Darren Wilson’s five-year-old self. He claimed that Brown “bulked up” with every shot that hit him. “I’ve never seen that. I mean, it was very aggravated, … aggressive, hostile… You could tell he was looking through you. There was nothing he was seeing.”

These myths and stereotypes all played into what is likely fairly close to what Wilson believes really happened. That he faced some superhuman black man that grew stronger with each bullet. This kind of thinking isn’t dangerous just because it’s a bad way to think about and relate to other people on a human level but because in these situations when people are making snap judgments, they fall back on things that are so grotesquely untrue that we can end up shooting and killing someone who is no threat because we think that black people are super powered demons, not really human at all.

Wilson did fear for his life, but not because his life was in danger. He feared for his life because he believed that black men are inherently dangerous, capable of killing so easily that Wilson wouldn’t have been able to dodge an injured, unarmed man stumbling in his direction. And he wouldn’t ever get convicted because a jury with white people on it would imagine a big black man and think, yeah, I would have been afraid for my life too.

—

Why are they burning their city down? What are they supposed to do? When the world is this unfair and there is no recourse, no justice, and no hope, what the hell are they supposed to do?

Thank you for writing this poignant blog about your experience. I’m the President of Morehouse SafeSpace—Morehouse’s Alliance for Gender and Sexual Diversities—and these issues are ones we grapple with frequently.

Our situation is a complex and peculiar one. I’m proud to say that many of us (students & alum) have committed to loving ourselves/each other regardless of—and in some instances because of—our differences. Moreover, there are many faculty and staff members—including the President of the college, the Office of Student Life, several professors, etc.—that embrace us. However, Morehouse’s curricula, institutional policies and procedures do not reflect this embrace. There are no Black queer studies courses, gender and sexual orientation are absent from our employment nondiscrimination policy, we have a dress code that outlaws wearing ‘female attire,’ we have an inactive diversity committee, and the list continues. So, I don’t think the football team’s reactions are inherent to them specifically. Instead, they are a product of a grooming process—that begins in the world, and is buttressed or goes uninterrupted at Morehouse—that’s checkered with heteronormativity and silence; inclusive spaces are forged here in spite of, not because of, the culture of the college.

To be sure, Morehouse will respond to this issue—many of us (students and alum) have reached out to the President and the VP of Student Affairs and they’ve responded with disappointment and noted that the football team will be engaging in dialogue about this soon. And, when asked about an institutional commitment to diversity, the VP noted that it’s also coming soon.

I hope this is true. Issues like these cannot and should not be dealt with discreetly. This is a systemic issue that permeates campus no matter how friendly and encouraging a few administrative folks are toward us. In short, I implore anyone who is concerned to ask, not what will happen with the football team particularly, but what will be installed to permanently mitigate homophobia on campus. That’s the key.

Thanks again,

Marcus Lee

EDITED TO ADD:

So many folks have reached out about the “Dear White People” blog and I’m so thankful for your support. I haven’t been able to offer detailed responses to folks asking about our needs because I’m still a student with A LOT of work to do, applications to complete, etc. But, I wanted to write a short post advising folks on what support for us looks like in this moment.

Things that don’t help:

- [Erroneously] saying that Morehouse is a school full of girls (which is somehow supposed to elucidate the irony of the situation; but, in reality only implies that there is something wrong with being a “girl” [gay] and reinforces homophobia.)

- Opportunistically reaching out to us to be flown down for a panel, a meeting, etc. without actually having any real concern about or knowledge of Morehouse’s history with diversity–i.e. our setbacks and triumphs.

- Castigating the actions of the football team without asking questions about what Morehouse is or is not doing institutionally to interrupt homophobia [thereby, allowing for the possibility that the football team may be used as a scapegoat to avoid dealing with institutional issues].

- Suggesting that homophobia among those men–some of whom are my friends–was inevitable [thereby, perpetuating the myth of Black “super-homophobia” (as opposed to white “gentle-homophobia”?)]

Things that do help:

- Reaching out to the Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities and asking her how many of the several open positions in the social science departments will be filled by scholars who study sexuality and gender–more specifically, scholars who label their work “Black/Queer/Feminist” [be sure that the word “Black” is included somewhere in that label.]

- Reach out to the President of the college and the VP of Student Affairs to ask which campus-wide programs are happening in order to mitigate homophobia.

- Ask the VP who is on the Diversity Committee, how often they meet, and what they have done for the campus

- Reach out to the Provost of the college to ask which part of the general education curriculum includes a necessary, thoroughgoing engagement with Black/Queer/Feminist work. Then, ask which texts are being read.

- Ask when the LGBT diversity competence training happens on campus and how many faculty and staff members show up.

- Reach out to General Counsel and ask how long it will take for gender identity and sexual orientation to be added to the employment non discrimination policy and the student non-discrimination policy.

- Reach out to the President and ask that the “Appropriate Attire Policy” be abolished.

- And the list continues.

I hope this helps!

]]>http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2014/10/25/a-letter-from-morehouse-safespace-president-marcus-lee/feed/21How the Morehouse Football Team ruined Dear White People and proved its pointhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2014/10/24/how-the-morehouse-football-team-ruined-dear-white-people-and-proved-its-point/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2014/10/24/how-the-morehouse-football-team-ruined-dear-white-people-and-proved-its-point/#commentsSat, 25 Oct 2014 03:40:23 +0000http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/?p=5616

As a filmmaker, intersectional scholar, and a huge fan and supporter of the original trailer and campaign for “Dear White People,” I was ecstatic to be able to go see the film here in Columbia, SC. The film itself didn’t disappoint. Clearly influenced by Wes Anderson in cinematography, but wholly unique in tone, it was a brilliantly funny, biting, and moving film. The acting, the directing, the cinematography were all superb, even before you take into account the origin story and budget of the film. The experience of seeing the film, however, was incredibly unpleasant. Spoilers ahead.

Just as the trailers were ending and the movie starting, a hundred people started pouring into the theater. This was the Morehouse College Football Team, here in Columbia to play Benedict College tomorrow. Morehouse is an all-male historically black college in Atlanta not too far from my own undergraduate institution of Emory. It is the alma mater of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As the movie started, I was excited that this many people were in the theater to see the movie. It was a short-lived excitement.

There are three main plots in “Dear White People,” and one of them focuses on a black gay kid named Lionel, played by “Everybody Hates Chris” star Tyler James Williams, who doesn’t fit in with any group — not with gay kids, not with white kids, and not with black kids, who have historically treated him with homophobia and cruelty. His story is about the toxic effect of homophobia in the black community. In addition to the heterosexual romances involving all the other characters, there is also a budding romance between Lionel and another man. The initial hints at this romance did not win the Morehouse College Football Team’s approval. They started saying homophobic things every time Lionel was onscreen. When Lionel had a same-sex kiss, the team went into a frenzy — everyone turned on their phones and said they weren’t looking, they started yelling, “What kind of movie is this?” Several of them walked out, others started yelling at anyone on their team for looking at the screen when the kiss happened, “Man, you looked at that, I saw you!” “What is this gay shit?” “Some of y’all didn’t turn your heads away!”

It was nauseating. But it got worse.

Lionel has a major heroic moment toward the end of the film in which he breaks up a racist party being held by an entitled white jerk, who is, more or less, the antagonist of the film, and who verbally and sexually harassed Lionel over his sexuality throughout the film. The racist white guy tackles Lionel and pins him down. In retaliation, Lionel kisses him (this freaked out the audience again), but the racist white guy responds by punching Lionel repeatedly in the face.

They cheered. This room full of black men who attend Dr. King’s alma mater. They cheered for the racist white guy because the black man he was being allowed to beat without repercussion was a faggot.

When the beating stopped, the Morehouse player behind me said that the white guy should have kept hitting him because that’s what he got for being gay.

I want you to imagine yourself in a dark room with a hundred physically fit men rooting for a hate crime to be perpetrated against a gay man. It was terrifying. It was horrifying. It was depressing. Can you imagine what a kid on that team who was gay would have felt?

When the film was over, it was all the men of Morehouse could talk about. Who hadn’t closed their eyes and looked away when there was gay kissing? One player said of Tyler James Williams, “Man, I must’ve watched every episode of ‘Everybody Hates Chris’ back in the day. Can’t believe he’d go out like that. Shit kills me.”

I don’t know if Morehouse College offers LGBT sensitivity training, but it should have someone come speak to the football team. Even if you don’t approve of homosexuality, to come to a city as a football team, representing your college and your hometown, and to spit hate and vitriol in a room that includes other people, including LGBT people — it is not OK. What kind of school sends out ambassadors of hate? Can it be the same one that sent out Dr. King? Hewing to the stereotype of black homophobia makes Morehouse and the black community weaker, and there are real victims. Lionel may be fictional, but his treatment was not. It’s a shame that “Dear White People”‘s message of acceptance didn’t reach everyone in the room.

EDITED TO ADD: Raynard Ware, a member of the Morehouse Football Team who was there last night offered this comment below, and I thought I should highlight it:

As a student and football player for the Maroon Tigers, I was disturb by the reaction of my teammates during certain scenes of the movie. The remarks and outbursts were upright embarrassing and prejudice. I am big on reputation and presentation. However, this is not a true reputation of our institution. We are sincerely apologetic that the loud embarrassing remarks were heard and not the intellectual discussion, which we also engaged in after the movie. Sorry to give off such a poor perception to the public eye, we ARE apologetic.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, some of my teammates needed to know the perception they give to people.

]]>http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2014/10/24/how-the-morehouse-football-team-ruined-dear-white-people-and-proved-its-point/feed/277Michael Shermer’s Harassmenthttp://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2014/09/11/michael-shermers-harassment/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2014/09/11/michael-shermers-harassment/#commentsFri, 12 Sep 2014 03:29:04 +0000http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/?p=5603A piece has just been published about misogyny in skepticism and atheism, and particularly about Michael Shermer, that includes me as a named source who has experienced inappropriate behavior from Mr. Shermer. It’s worth pointing out that my story is merely a supporting story to the larger overall story of Mr. Shermer’s behavior, and not nearly as awful as some others. I have never told it in public, though many people have heard it in private, because of a fear of litigious reprisals and hate mail; it never seemed worth it until I was asked to comment on this story. To the extent that it’s useful and people would like to have full details on what happened, this is my full story.

In 2010, I went to the Orange County Freethought Association Conference after reading about it on PZ’s blog. You could pay $50 to eat dinner with PZ, which struck me as a good deal. I was in LA and didn’t have a lot of friends and I was a big fan of PZ’s blog. I was, at the time, an atheist but not really aware of the larger skeptic and atheist communities. Which was a shame. As I later learned, if you were part of the movement before you went to events, you’d get warnings on who to avoid. The number one person I was told to avoid was Shermer, but I didn’t hear that until months after I met him.

I largely had a good time at the conference. I was there alone, but succeeded in talking to a few people, including PZ, who I really liked. And, with the exception of Shermer, I wasn’t really hit on or harassed despite it being an overwhelmingly male environment. I didn’t really know who Shermer was before this, I’d never heard of him — he was obviously a speaker with a book, but he wasn’t swarmed by people either.

During a break, I went to speak to him as he was sitting alone at his book stand. We had a brief talk, he was flirtatious but I ignored it and I bought one of his books. I had noticed that he had his hand on his crotch while we were talking, but I tried to not look at it, thinking he must not have realized. He appeared to scratch himself a few times, though I was making an effort not to look because he otherwise seemed like a nice enough guy. Then he kept chatting a bit and sunk lower in his chair and started asking me more personal questions and was clearly not only touching and rubbing his crotch but apparently trying to drive my attention there by slouching further and thereby directing his crotch more clearly at me. He repositioned in such a way that my direct line of vision to him required I see his crotch and his hand moving on it. It felt like it went on an eternity, but it couldn’t have been more than a 10 minute conversation. I extricated myself.

It was weird, to say the least. I had no idea what to make of it. It’s the kind of thing you expect from weirdos in a subway car. He wasn’t excessively hitting on me verbally, though it felt like it was leading to that before I left. I tried to rationalize the behavior… Maybe he just like had a very thorough and never-ending itch? It rattled me. But I pushed it to the back of my mind, because it was gross and weird. And I didn’t know him. I was by myself, there was no one to talk it through with, so I just ignored it and decided not to talk about it, because how do you?

At the dinner, I was extremely worried that Shermer would sit near me. I just felt like if I had to spend more time with Shermer, it would go badly, and then I wouldn’t be able to ignore it and pretend it was nothing. I was new to all this, new to all these people, didn’t know the guy at all, and didn’t have firm ground to stand on. It had also become clear to me over the day that politics around Shermer were complicated and I didn’t want to become a pawn in that particular game when I didn’t even know what game it was.

You can read nearly full accounts of my dinner with PZ and my overall impression of the conference. I point you to these two, because they both mention Shermer, and do not mention this behavior, and I don’t want anyone going through the archives to feel as though I am hiding this information. The bits on Shermer:

I never quite figured out what [PZ] was vaguely irritated with Michael Shermer for. Michael Shermer, by the way, looks eerily like Jonathan Pryce and has a weird arrogant swagger to him that is both compelling and a bit unsettling. He was super nice when I talked to him and I got his newest book, so nothing personal there, just an observation.

Post lunch and it’s Michael Shermer, the aforementioned Jonathan Pryce doppelganger with the arrogant swagger, and I can’t for the life of me remember what he talked about except that it pissed some people off. If anyone was there and remembers, tell me?

I cannot remember whether I spoke to Shermer before or after his speech, so I don’t know if my complete blockage of his speech is because I couldn’t pay attention after our encounter or because it got subsumed by my vivid memory of our interaction. I’m a bit surprised at myself for going as negative as “unsettling” in my description of him at the time. And he was perfectly nice in conversation, he just was also touching his crotch and trying to get me to look at it.

The closest I got to posting about it was a year later when I was writing for SheThought. Once I was part of the movement, I heard a lot more stories about him and realized that my experience was part of a larger pattern. I just wish I’d gotten the warning so many skeptic women get about avoiding Shermer before my first conference rather than after. My friends dubbed him Crotchdexter, though it’s clear to me that while his behavior towards me was absurd, some of his other behavior has been incredibly damaging. To be clear, there was damage done to me by Shermer — it made me question joining the movement at my first event ever and it made me feel obligated to keep a secret to prevent the Lewinsky effect, whereby the only thing I’d be known for in the movement was as a footnote to Shermer rather than a person.

Comments Policy: I normally am very liberal with the kinds of comments I allow on my site. However, due to my high anxiety about dealing with the fallout, I will be very heavily moderating the comments to this post. I would like the comments here to be a safe space for people who’ve experienced sexual harassment and assault as well as a safe space for me, and as such, will delete anything out of keeping with that goal. There are many other places to discuss this if you’re uncomfortable with this policy. If the comments become overwhelmingly bad, they will be turned off.